November 12, 2008
Read Entire Book Faiths of Man Part 1
Buy entire book Faiths of Man
Abadon. Hebrew. “ Destruction ” personified as the Greek
Apolluōn (Revelat. ix, 11), and as Asmodeus (see Asmodeus) called
by Rabbis Ashmadai (see Job xxvi, 6); and in the Book of Wisdom
(xviii, 25) Olothreuōn in the Greek.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abaddon
Abel. It is necessary to distinguish Abel the second son of Adam
(Hebrew Habl), from Habāl or Hobāl the great Arabian deity,
though the letters seem the same (see Habāl). Abel is usually
supposed to be the Babylonian word Ablu “ son.” The Hebrew Ābel
is again different—a common term for “ meadow.” Arabs and
Persians call Abel and Cain, Habīl and Ḳ abīl. No very satisfactory
explanation of their legends in Genesis has been given (see Ḳain).
Detail of the Ghent Altarpiece (1432) at Saint Bavo Cathedral.
Aben. Hebrew Eben, “ a stone.” Perhaps the root is found in
Banah “ to build,” as Ban or Ben (“ a son ”) is builder of the family
(see Ben). Ebenezer (“ stone of help ”) was a stone emblem of the
god, like those of Arabia (see Arabia). Jeremiah tells his tribe that
a stone begat them, and that they committed adulteries with stones
Jer. ii, 27 ; iii, 9. See also Gen. xxxi, 48 ; and 1 Sam. iv, 1 ;
vii, 12). Āban (says Delitzsch) has the sense of a “ peak ” or “ pointed
thing ”—the Assyrian Ubanu “ peak, rock, or finger ” (see Finger).
Abhi-Marsin. Sanskrit. Courting, inciting.
Abi-Kāma. Sanskrit. “ Love primeval,” intense desire, struggle,
war.
Ablathanabla. See Abraxas.
Abors. Bors. The Asamese term for the wild race, calling
themselves Padams or Pagdams, inhabiting the N.E. frontier of British
territory at the bend of the Brāhmapūtra River (N. and N.W.), and
embracing the greater and lesser Dihong river valleys, north of
Sadiya. The term Abor is said to mean “ savage,” “ non-tribute
payer,” or “ fierce man ” : for Abors are a much-feared people who
hunt down even the “ wild cow ” (or Nilgau), and eat buffalo beef,
but not cows—showing a Hindu influence. They worship Nāts or
fays, spirits of the woods and waters : they tattoo their bodies, and
clothe themselves in skins and bark, but go naked in the hot season.
They are never without their bows and arrows—the latter poisoned
(for war) with the powdered root of the wild aconite, or with blood.
They wear a dhār, or long cutlass, at the waist, or slung (as by
Burmese) over the shoulder.
These people are scarcely as yet out of the communal stage, and
pay scant respect to chiefs, with some 250 of whom the Government had to deal in 1859-1870, and to try to keep them quiet by
subsidies. They are all sullen, clownish, and violent when roused,
like their congeners of Tibet and Barmah. Families are distinguished
by totems, or by marks on the forehead. The poorer are often
polyandrous : the richer are polygamous ; and sometimes they are
communists, a group of men living with a group of women. There
are barracks for bachelors and women, where considerable licence is
practised ; and chastity consists in having no intercourse outside the
clan. As regards religion, they believe in a life hereafter, with rewards
and punishments ; and sacrifices are said to please and propitiate the
spirits, and to be necessary to prevent famine and pestilence.
Abram. Abraham. There is no very satisfactory etymology of
this mythical patriarch’s name. Abram (Babylonian Ab-ramu) is
usually rendered “ high father,” that is to say, a deity like Brahmā.
Abraham is compared with the Arabic rahām, “ a host—a “ Lord of
Hosts” like Gānesa, or Yahveh. Hindus call a loving brother Rāmu.
The tablets of Esarhaddon’s days give such names as Abi-ramu and
Am-ramu. If we take the root to be Abr “ strong,” as in Abir a
“ bull ” or “ hero,” the m is only a suffix—as in Hebrew, Sabean, or
Babylonian speech. Some think this word connected with ’Abr (see
Gen. xiv, 13, and Exod. v, 3) ; for Abraham is especially called the
“ Hebrew,” and descendant of ’Eber, father of Peleg. Coming from
Padan-Aram he would naturally worship the “ high God ” (El-’Eliūn),
and seek his shrine at Ieru-salem (“ the abode of salvation ”). There
stood (no doubt) his symbol, a sacred stone (menhir or lingam) ; and
naturally he dedicated to this the agent of creation by circumcision,
swearing solemn oaths thereby, as we read that Abram and Isaac did
by what is euphemistically called the “ thigh.” See the Jewish World
(3rd April 1885), where the learned writer says: “ Abraham is a title
applied to the Creator only ” ; and if so, based on the root Bra “ create “
(Gen. i, 1).
Most Syrians and Arabs considered Abraham to be a Messiah ;
and prayers are still addressed to him (at his tomb in Hebron), as
Christians pray to Christ or to Mary. Abraham, as Ab-ram, “ the high
father,” was both a Malaki-ṣadī ḳ (Melchisedec), or “ King of righteousness,”
and a Shem—“ sign ” or “ mark.” Yet, says the Rev. Dr Cheyne
(Hibbert Lectures, 1892), “ Abraham must be given up as an historical
figure . . . some one must confess this truth, which ought, long ago,
to have found its way into our schools and colleges.”
This view is corroborated by the various widely different periods
assigned as the age of Abraham. The Samaritan and Greek Bibles say
he lived in 2605 B.C. Josephus said 2576, and the Vulgate, 2015 B.C.
Prof. Hommel (in 1896-7), says he “could not have lived earlier
than 1900 B.C.,” and Archbishop Ussher makes him 175 years
old in 1821 B.C. According to this Biblical chronology, he left Padan
Ararn in 1921 B.C. (see Bible), and went to Egypt on account of a
famine. But by Egypt we may understand the south of Palestine,
then perhaps an Egyptian province. Thence, about 1917 B.C., he
went to settle with Lot, “ towards Sodom.” In 1913 B.C. Chedorlaomer,
King of Elam, came, with ’Aniraphel, King of Shinar, Tidal king of
nations, and Arioch, King of Ellasar (Larsa), to quell a rebellion in
Eastern Palestine, which had been under Elam for twelve years.
The Biblical legend runs that Abraham (apparently 83 years old),
pursued this Babylonian army with three hundred and eighteen armed
retainers, defeating it, and taking the spoil and prisoners (Lot among
them), near Ḥ obah, “ north of Damascus.” This Hebrew fable, however,
enables us to test the dates. A tablet from Tell Lo ḥ (Revue Assyr. iv, p.
85, 1897), has been supposed to mention ’Amraphel (as Ḥ ammurabi),
with Arioch (Eriaku),and Tidal (Tudkhal), in which case Abraham would
live about the 22nd century B.C. [This translation is, however, rejected
by most specialists ; and the tablet is late, and probably refers to events
about 648 B.C.—ED.] Ḥ ammurabi (Kha-am-mu-ra-bi), is usually
supposed to have acceded in 2139 B.C. (the date given by Dr Peiser,
and by Col. Conder in his Hittites, p. 175). He ruled over “ the
west ” (Martu in Akkadian), like his successor Ammi-satana
(2034-2009 B.C.).
It has puzzled some commentators that Abraham went “ south ”
from Egypt on his way to Bethel [see Gen. xiii, 3. But the Hebrew
word so rendered is Negeb, a term applying to the “ dry ” country—as
the word means—near Beersheba.—ED.] The fatherland of Abraham
was at “ Ur of the Chaldees ” (Hebrew “ Ur of the Kasdīm ”), the later
Edessa, now Orfah. Ignoring this site, scholars have placed Ur at
Mugeiyer in Chaldea (near the mouth of the Euphrates), and have been
puzzled to explain why he went to Ḥ aran (near Edessa); but that
Ḥ aran was his fatherland, we see by his sending his confidential servant
there to seek a wife for Isaac. [The error is due to following the Greek
translation of Kasdīm by Khaldaioi (whom Herodotos mentions in
Babylon), and identifying them with the Kaldu, a people of Kaldea,
south of Babylon. Kasdīm appears to mean “ conquerors ” in Assyrian.—
ED.] The author of Acts vii, 2-4 calls Padan-Aram (Mesopotamia), the
“ land of the Ohaldeans.” Ṭ eraḥ called his youngest son also Ḥ aran ; and
there are still many legends of the patriarchs in this region—such as that
Orham, King of Or (Edessa), called Abram Ab-or-ham—reminding us of
Pater Orchamus (Ovid. Metam. iv, 212), the fabled son of Zeus, founder
of the empire of the Anatolian Mineans, who ruled Boiōtia and North
Greece from their capital Orkhomenos. M. Renan (Hist. Israel, i,
p. 63), even says, “Orham has lent his name, and several characteristic
traits, to the history of Abraham.”
Many years after the above was first written appeared the
valuable paper by Mr Hormazd Rassam, the old explorer of Nineveh
(Proc. Soc. Bib. Arch., February 1898), which proves that “ Ur of the
Ohaldees ” was Edessa, or Orfah. Cappadocia (Kappadokia) proves to
have been early entered by the Babylonians, who spread all over
North Syria. The name Khaldaioi (in the Septuagint) may thus be
connected with that of Khaldis on the Vannic inscriptions [applying
to a deity.—ED.]. From Ur, Ṭ era ḥ ’s family went to Ḥ aran, which is
only some two days’ journey from Edessa. In Judith (v, 6, 7), Jews
are called descendants of the Arameans, “a belief prevalent among all
Hebrews in Biblical lands at the present day” (Rassam). It is not
known, however, why the Septuagint translators changed the Hebrew
Kasdīm into “ Chaldeans.” According to Ezekiel (i, 3), the “ land
of the Kasdīm ” was by the River Chebar (or Khabūr River), a great
tributary of the Euphrates, one affluent of which rises in the Aram
or “ high land ” near to where Edessa is situated. It was the country
of Bal’aam (Deut. xxiii, 4), and was higher up the Euphrates than
Babylon, whereas Mugeiyer is near the mouth of that river, far below
Babylon. All this, and more, is ably set forth by Mr Rassam, who
only follows in the track of many other Oriental scholars.
In the Book Zohar (see Ḳ abbala) Abraham is called an “ incarnation
of love, mystery, and divine unity ” : he is symbolised by a pillar
(p. 41) as were Zeus, Yahveh, etc. He was the first to teach the
Ḳ abbala to Egypt, and received the mysteries “ from Noah, who
received them from Adam, who received them from God ” (Ginsburg’s
Zohar). Moses had personal intercourse with Abraham, as had most
legislators down to David and Solomon (p. 80). In the Book Jetzira
(“ Creation ”) the Ḳ abbala is called “ a monologue of Abraham,”
whereby he is induced to accept the true faith; and he is there said
to have invented writing and the Hebrew characters (p. 65). Elsewhere
he is described as a “ giant, a monster, having the strength of
seventy-four men, and requiring the food and drink of the same.”
The Arabian El Kindy (in our 8th-9th century) says, “ Abraham
lived seventy years in Ḥ aran, worshipping Al’Ozzah, who is still
revered in Arabia ” (see Royal Asiatic Society Journal, January 1882 ;
and Sir W. Muir’s El Kindy). He says that the inhabitants were
given to human sacrifice—which Abram wished to continue in
Palestine, whence the early rite of devoting the first-born to Yahveh.
The sacrifice of Isaac (or, as the Arabs say, of Ishm’ael) has now been
whittled down by Ezra-itic writers, who were evidently ashamed of it,
as making their God a bloodthirsty fiend, and their patriarch the
heartless murderer of his innocent boy. Tradition, and the persistence
of race barbarism, are however too strong for the would-be cleansers of
history ; and God and man still appear cruel and deceitful, while
multitudes still commemorate the half-enacted rite (see Sacrifice).
Abraham is represented as trying to hide his murderous purpose from
his son and servants by a lie, saying he would return with the child.
The deity doubts his sincerity till the knife is raised, when the wouldbe
murderer is lauded for wondrous “ Faith.” Faith in a God ?
—nay, in a dream. His God then promises him wealth, and offspring,
in abundance.
The sacrifice was originaJly commemorated in autumn, when
human sacrifices were common ; and what would be more orthodox
than that a great Sheikh, entering on a new land to found a colony,
should begin by offering his first-born to the god of the land ? Did
not the Christian Saint Columba bury his brother, St. Oran, in the
foundations of his church ? (Rivers of Life, ii, p. 340.)
Abraham, however, seems to have been anything but wealthy
when he died, possessing only the burial-place that he is said to have
purchased. He had given “ all he possessed ” to Isaac, and “ the
rest ” to numerous children by two stray wives. Islāmis say that he
travelled in both Arabia and Babylonia, but chiefly in Arabia ; and
that he assisted Ishm’ael in building the fourth shrine of Makka, and
in establishing the “ Black Stone ” (see our Short Studies, p. 539).
Hebrews and Arabs have reverently called him the Khalīl, or “ friend ”
of Allah (see Gen. xv, 17 ; Isaiah xli, 8).
Among arithmetical errors in the Bible is the statement that he
was born when Ṭ era ḥ was 70 years old, yet was 75 when (apparently)
Ṭ era ḥ died at the age of 205 years. He is also said not to have
known Yahveh, but only the tree gods—Āle-im or Elohim. He twice
dissembled to save his life by endangering his wife’s chastity, which
he seems to have valued little, as she lived some time in the harīms of
Pharaoh and Abimelek, who heaped riches on Abraham. It is untrue
to say that Sarah was “ without shame or reproach,” for Genesis
xii, 19 should read, “ she is my sister though I have taken her for
my wife.”
We shall not attempt to record the voluminous legends (in the
Talmud, etc.) concerning Abraham, of which the Old Testament does
not give a tithe. He is said to have visited Nimrod, and to have
converted him by the old feeble argument: “ Fire must not be worshipped
for water quenches it ; nor water because clouds carry this ;
nor clouds because winds drive them.” He might have added, “ Nor
Yahveh because we invented him.” According to other traditions,
Yahveh found great difficulty in calling (or killing) Abraham. He
sent the archangel Michael several times, to break the command to
Abraham as gently as possible : for the patriarch loved life. The
archangel—whom he fed—told his mission to Isaac, who tried to
explain it, deploring that both sun and moon (Abram and Sarah)
must ascend to heaven. The patriarch then accused Michael of
trying to steal away his soul, which he said he would never yield up.
The Lord then reminded him, by Michael, of all that he had done
for him ; and that, like Adam and others, he must die. Abraham
asked that he might first see “ all peoples and their deeds ” ; but,
when carried up in a chariot, he was so disgusted, by what he saw,
that he begged the earth might open and swallow all peoples. God
then shut his eyes lest they should all be destroyed, saying, “ I do not
wish it so, for I created all, and will only destroy the wicked.”
Abraham then saw a narrow road with few people on it, and a man
on a gold throne, “ terrible and like God,” though it was only Adam :
and again a broad road thronged with people, and with pursuing
angels. The man (or god) tore his hair and beard in sorrow, and
cast himself and his throne to the ground ; but, as people increased
on the narrow way, he rose rejoicing though “ in 7000 years only
one soul is saved.” The angels were scourging the wicked with
whips of fire ; and at the door of heaven sat one “ like the Son
of God,” though he was only Abel, having before him a table, and
a Bible twelve yards long and eight yards wide. He wrote down
the virtues and sins of all, and then weighed the souls (like Thoth).
The Lord had commanded Abel to judge all till the final judgment,
which is to be by the Son of God. Some souls were however set
aside as wanting an extra good deed, and “ Abraham prayed for such,
and the Lord saved them because of Abraham’s holiness.” He also
saved, at his request, all whom Abraham had cursed on earth. The
patriarch was then taken back to his house, to the great joy of his
family, and commanded to settle his worldly affairs, and to give up
his soul to Michael. This Abraham again refused to do; so the
Angel of Death was told to visit him—which he was very unwilling
to do. He was however commanded to disguise himself as a gentle
and beautiful spirit ; but he confessed to Abraham that he was the
“ poison of Death.” He argued long that he could not depart
without Abraham’s soul ; and he assumed many horrid forms, but
did not frighten the patriarch, who accused Death of killing even
boys and girls, and made him kneel down with him and pray for
their restoration. Death continued to torment the patriarch, who
was 175 years old ; and at last he slept on his bed, and kissed
Death’s hand, mistaking it for that of his son, so receiving “ the
poison of death.” Michael and innumerable angels “bore away his
pure soul, and placed it in the hands of the Lord ; and his body was
swathed in pure white linen, and buried in ‘ Dria the Black ’ or Elonē-
Mamre.” (From a Roumanian text, published by Dr Gaster, who
gives this interesting Apocalypse in the Transactions, Bib. Arch.
Soc., ix, 1.)
Abraxas. Abrasax. Abracadabra. Ablathanabla.
Abanathabla. Various terms on Gnostik charms—see Rivers of
Life, i, p. 511. [The translations are much disputed. Probably
they are Aramaic sentences: Abrak ha dabra, “ I bless the deed ” :
Ablaṭ ha nabla, “I give life to the corpse” : Abana thabla, “ Thou
our father leadest.”—ED.] The Persian sun-god was seen in the
Greek letters Abraxas, representing in numbers 365—the days of
the solar year. This word, placed on an amulet or seal, exorcised
evil spirits, and was eXplained by Semites as meaning Abra-Shedabara,
“go out bad spirit out” [or perhaps better, Abrak ha āsh, “I
bless the man.”—ED.] In Syria Abraxas was a form of Iao (Yahveh),
Mithras, Ṣ abaoth, or Adonis, figured as a lion-headed solar serpent
with a rayed glory (Rivers of Life, ii, p. 274) : or as a cock-headed
serpent, or the eastern serpent (Sesha) biting his own tail as Ananta
“ the Eternal.” In Egyptian Abrasax was thought to signify “hurt me
not ” ; and the pious Christian Marullus bequeathed to his children
an amulet, with this name on the one side, and a serpent on the
other, of jasper enclosed in a golden Bulla shaped like a heart—the
seat of emotions. Such bullæ are said to be the origin of the “ Sacred
Heart,” and to explain the name of Papal “ Bulls,” though these had
leaden “ seals ” later (Rivers of Life, ii, pp. 237-8). Such amulets
cured bodily pains, and averted the evil eye. We read of the
physician of Gordian II. as prescribing one for his patient (see King’s
Gnostics, pp. 105-6). Basilides the Gnostik is said to have invented
Abraxas, to denote the spirit presiding over the 365 days of the year.
But the radical idea was that of fecundity, for the image is found as
a bearded Priapus grasping his organ like Osiris.
October 7, 2008
The Doctrine of the Origin of Evil
in
Lurianic and Sabbatian Kabbalah
and in the
‘Awakening of Faith’
in
Mahayanistic Buddhism
by
Evgeny A. Torchinov
The doctrine of evil is a crucial question for every religious and mystico-theosophical system of thought. In Christianity this problem was a source of a serious controversy which led to the appearance of a number of systems of theodicy, i.e., explanations of the coexistence of an all-good God Creator and evil in the world created by this God.
One of the most influential answers to this theological challenge was the theodicy of Leibniz who argued the tenet that in any case God has created the best world from all possible worlds. The explanation of evil as the consequence of the human free will and freedom of choice was also rather popular. But it could not explain the necessity of the choice itself: how there appeared the very possibility of evil if the source of the world (that is, God) was absolutely good.
Some theosophically oriented thinkers were ready to explain evil by postulating, in the very substance of God, the presence of some dark, or ethically indifferent foundation. The Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev developed this idea, proclaiming that before God there was a dark foundation which was also the source and root of God Himself, and which had potencies to explicate itself equally as good and evil. He called this pre-Divine substance ‘meonic freedom’ (‘nonexistent freedom,’ or ‘non-being-less freedom’). In this he followed Schelling who insisted that the sentence ‘God has his foundation in Himself’ means that this foundation is something really (not only formally and logically) different from God, existing nevertheless inside God and before God.
Kabbalah has always been extremely attentive to the problem of evil. Kabbalistic gnostics and theosophists as a rule followed the same course of thinking (or the same pattern) as the successors of Boehme and Schelling. It can even be ventured that Kabbalists were the real predecessors of this pattern of thought in Christian mysticism; but the question of the historical influence of Kabbalah on Boehme or Schelling is still open. Nevertheless, Kabbalistic theosophy suggested very original varieties of this pattern, sometimes even avoiding the dangers of dualism as well as those of pure illusionism.
In the very brief outline of the Kabbalistic approach to evil suggested below I will limit myself to the approach of Lurianic Kabbalah, mainly because of its role in the history of the Kabbalistic movement and the predominant importance of the doctrine of evil in its gnostic-theosophical system. I will add some brief references to the Sabbatean Kabbalah of Nathan of Gaza, which is directly derived from Lurianic Kabbalah as its source and paradigm.
The Lurianic Kabbalah, as explicated by R. Hayyim Vital, teaches that the hidden transcendent Absolute, Deus Absconditus (En Sof, Unlimited, or ‘Or En Sof � Unlimited Light) had to contract Itself to produce the place for the creation. If En Sof is everything, if It is unlimited and endless, there is no ‘space’ for the created universe. Therefore, En Sof, or Unlimited Light, contracted from the center outwards to ‘empty’ a place within itself for the world to be created.
The technical term for this contraction is ‘zimzum‘ (tzimtzum). Throughout the ages, different interpretations of zimzum were suggested, from the literal and mytho-poetic to the philosophical. For instance, some Kabbalists interpreted zimzum as God’s self-limitation for the benefit of creation.
It is noteworthy in this regard that Nathan of Gaza, in his ‘Book on Creation‘ (Sefer ha-Beriy’a), taught the existence of some duality or even contradiction in the Divine Will: a wish to contract and to create (i.e., ‘thought-some lights’), and a wish to be in an eternal state of the hidden mystery without any contraction or creation (i.e., ‘thought-less lights’).
What was the cause of this divine contraction? Lurianic Kabbalah proposes that the nature of the Divine Will itself eternally strove to the unfolding of the hidden mystery of En Sof. But another source has been pointed out for the initiating of the cosmogonic process. It was the wish of En Sof to liberate Itself from the roots of evil potentially present in Its nature, understood as the roots of the power of Stern Judgement (din).
These roots had to be objectified, to be manifested so that it became possible for En Sof to emancipate itself from them. The Absolute had to become conscious of those roots in order to be liberated from them. Thus, the very process of creation as that of ordering, limitation and bordering is the process of the objectivization of the roots of the Stern Judgement.
Hence, It can be said that the moving force for the creation process (and for zimzum as its first stage) is the tendency within the Absolute (En Sof) to liberate itself from the potentially evil roots of Stern Judgement. But this process, by its very nature, is closely related to the explication of the roots of evil and their transition from potentiality to actuality. Only by giving existence to the powers of Stern Judgement, can the Absolute be liberated from them, or transform them into the principles of goodness and holiness.
This idea can be expressed as the immanence of the explication of the powers of Stern Judgement (and consequently, of evil) to initiate the process of creation: that is, the beginning of creation by necessity is contraction, zimzum. But every contraction, or limitation is a function of the powers of Stern Judgement. Thus, these powers are necessarily involved in the creation at its very foundation, and this involvement is pregnant with the appearance of the actual evil. Hence it is important for the aims of this paper to underline the following points:
In early Buddhism and in Theravada (Sthaviravada) tradition the problem of evil has been decided in a very simple way. Evil was understood as ‘suffering,’ duhkha which was thought to be one of the most fundamental qualities of being as such (together with anitya – non eternity, non constancy and anatma – essencelessness, or devoidedness of essence/’ego’). Briefly speaking, early Buddhism only demonstrated the fact of evil as a principal attribute of every existence as such. It also analyzed the cause of suffering and involvement of the sentient beings into the cyclic existence of the world of births-and-deaths (samsara), and this cause of this involvement was ignorant affectivity and desires, or defilements (klesa). Moreover, in the Abhidharmic texts (e.g., Vasubandhu’s famous ‘Compendium of Abhidharma,’ Abhidharma kosa, chapter 3, Loka nirdesa, ‘Exposition of the World‘) even the Triple Cosmos (traya lokya) itself was thought to be the objectivization (‘materialization’) of the summarized sequences of the affects of the living beings of the preceding cosmic cycle (kalpa). Nothing else but klesas (affects and desires in their latent, or subtle form) produce the material foundation of the universe at the beginning of every cosmic cycle. And this universe is only an expression of the beginningless desires and lusts which lead every being to the painful samsaric existence according to the Law of Interdependent Origination (pratitya samutpada). And this ‘evil’ character of samsara is confirmed by the doctrinal essentials of Buddhism, that is, the Four Noble Truths:
But the question of the origins of ignorant volitions and affects did not arise at all. Moreover it was thought to be an incorrect one because of the beginningless character of the cyclic existence of samsara. This position was tightly connected with the empirical treatment of the problem of consciousness: early Buddhism was interested only in analyses of the given contents of the psychic without an attempt to examine the question of the root, or source of consciousness (vijnana) and its contents.
In Mahayana (Great Vehicle Buddhism) the situation has been radically changed. Mahayanistic schools of Buddhism (first of all, Yogacara, or Vijnaptimatra) tried to find the source root of consciousness as well as the root of all samsaric existence. The Yogacarins proclaimed a famous tenet that all three worlds of samsara are but consciousness (vijnana, citta) and its states (vijnapti, caita). If samsara is but consciousness, it means that the roots of consciousness are the roots of samsara as well. The Yogacarins introduced a notion of alaya vijnana (store consciousness) as a source of all samsaric experiences. It is important to note that in the classical Yogacara this store consciousness was not understood as substance, or even substratum of the experiential world. The Yogacarins often used the image of the stream of water to depict alaya vijnana: it is a pure continuity of impermanent, or even momentary nature. The Tibetan word for ‘alaya vijnana‘ is sems kun gzhi, that is ‘consciousness which is the all-root.’
The concept of alaya vijnana was sufficient to explain the nature of samsara but it mostly failed to explain the nature of the final liberation, nirvana and Enlightenment, or more exactly, Awakening (bodhi) as attainment of the exalted state of Buddhahood.
This drawback was corrected by the doctrine of Tathagatagarbha the examination of which is essential for this study. Tathagata (Thus Coming One) is one of the most frequently used titles of the Buddha. The Sanskrit word garbha has double meaning. The first one is embryo, or foetus. The second one is a container of a foetus, that is the womb. In the first case Tathagatagarbha is the embryo of Buddhahood (state of the Buddha) not only immanent to our own original nature (as well as to the true nature of every sentient being) but it even composes this nature (every being is a potential Buddha, Buddha-to-be). In the second case Tathagatagarbha is One Mind, the Absolute Mind (eka citta) embracing all existence being the substratum of both � samsara and nirvana.
This Absolute Mind has four noble qualities which are contrary to the qualities of samsara: if samsara is unconstant (anitya), full of sufferings (duhkha), devoid of essence (anatma) and dirty (asubha), then Tathagatagarbha is constant (nitya), blissful (sukha), it has Essence, or Self (atma) and it is pure (subha). This Absolute Buddha-Mind is also the nature of every state of consciousness like water is the nature of every wave.
Here, the problem of Enlightenment/Awakening has been solved: it is the realization of our own inner nature which is but Buddha Nature. But the question of the origin of samsara with its unending chains of sufferings and frustrations obtained new actuality. If the nature of every existence (of all dharmas in the Buddhist terminology) is absolutely perfect, translucent and enlightened how is it possible for samsara to come into being (even conditioned and relative) at all? What is the source of samsaric existence with all its evils? Briefly speaking, the Buddhist Mahayana thinkers became trapped by the problem of theodicy.
The most detailed and distinct exposition of the Buddhist doctrine of the origin of evil (and samsara) as well can be found in Mahayana sraddhotpada sastra (Chin.: Da sheng qi xin lun), or the ‘Awakening of Faith in Mahayana‘. This text, now existing only in Chinese is a pseudoepigraph of the Indian author of the 1st century C.E., Asvaghosa. In reality it appeared in China in the 6th century. According to the Buddhist tradition it was translated into Chinese from Sanskrit in 550 by the famous Indian Buddhist monk and translator, Paramartha (499-569) but there are strong suspicions that it was written in Chinese by Paramartha himself or by one of his Chinese disciples, though the text artificially imitates the form and style of the Indian theoretical treatises. Additional strength to these suspicions are strengthened by the fact that there are no quotations from this work in any known Indian-Buddhist texts, as well as that there is no Tibetan translation of it. The famous Chinese pilgrim of the 7th century C.E., Xuanzang, was so struck by the fact that the Indian scholars he encountered were ignorant of such an important text that he even translated it from Chinese into Sanskrit.
The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana (henceforth: Awakening) became one of the most important texts of the Buddhist tradition of Eastern Asia (China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam); it exerted an extremely powerful influence on the process of formatting the Far Eastern Buddhist schools (such as Tiantai, Huayan and Chan/Zen) and their doctrinal teachings.
From the theoretical side, it represents the highest point of the development of the Tathagatagarbha theory contaminated with some Yogacara doctrines, the most important of which was the doctrine of alaya vijnana, store conscious. Thus, the Awakening combined to form strong sides of both doctrines: the Yogacara theory of the origins of samsara, and the Tathagatagarbian teaching about Enlightenment and the Buddha-nature. Here we will try to examine the character of this doctrinal synthesis and its contents.
It is important to note that the Awakening declares the primeval existence of the only reality (tathata, or Suchness) which is but One Mind (ekacitta, yi xin). This Absolute is empty of our thinking being a kind of transcendent reality but not empty in itself, being the pleroma, or fullness of innumerable good qualities. Nevertheless, just this Suchness is a source of samsara with all its sufferings as well as nirvana with its bliss. The Awakening proclaims:
‘From the very beginning, Suchness in its nature is fully provided with all excellent qualities; namely, it is endowed with the light of great wisdom, [the qualities of] illuminating the entire universe, of true cognition and mind pure in its self-nature; of eternity, bliss, Self, and purity; of refreshing coolness, immutability, and freedom. It is endowed with this [excellent qualities] which outnumbered the sands of the Ganges, which are not independent of, disjointed from, or different from [the essence of Suchness], and which are supra-rational [attributes of] Buddhahood. Since it is endowed completely with all these, and is not lacking anything, it is called the Tathagata-garbha [when latent] and also the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata‘.
The text declares that the Absolute Mind (Suchness) has two aspects: the aspect of Enlightenment and that of non-enlightenment.
Original Enlightenment (Original Awakening, ben jue, literally, ‘root Awakening’) is a substance of Mind devoid of conceptual differentiating thinking. It is like unlimited empty space which pervades everything, and it is ‘One without second’ as the absolute body of the Buddha (dharmakaya, fa shen).
Non-enlightenment (bu jue) is also grounded in the original Enlightenment being of secondary and non-substantial nature. Nevertheless, because of its empirical existence there appeared the necessity for living beings (human beings) to cultivate mind by contemplative practices to realize their substantially enlightened nature. This kind of Enlightenment obtained empirically through psychological practices of the Buddhist yoga is called here ‘Enlightenment which has its beginning’ (shi jue).
Original Enlightenment is intrinsic, but non-enlightenment is accidental. The latter is a non-actualized state of the same original enlightenment. That is to say, man is originally enlightened or saved, but suffers because he does not realize that he is enlightened or saved and continues on as a blind or faithless man, groping for enlightenment or salvation elsewhere. The premise is that if man is not enlightened or saved originally, there is no possibility of his attaining enlightenment or salvation at all.
This obtained Enlightenment in its complete and perfect form is but the original Enlightenment by its essence and substance. Forms and types of the practice (bhavana) of the bodhisattva who will to attain Buddhahood and the stages of this practice have been described in details in the text of Awakening.
The unenlightened aspect expresses its nature in not realizing oneness with the True Nature of Suchness and illusory independence from it. This ignorance gives rise to the differentiating thoughts and then to subject-and-object dichotomy, passions and last and, finally, to all qualities of the miseries of the samsaric existence. Nevertheless, those ignorant thoughts have no substantiality of their own. Therefore, ‘they are not independent of the original enlightenment’. And commentators of the Awakening as well as the Buddhist thinkers who were connected in their philosophies with the doctrine of this work often graphically depicted this aspect of Absolute as the black dot in the center of the white circle of original Enlightenment (as it was done by Zongmi, 780-841, in his famous ‘Chan Preface‘ ).
The text also is attentive to the problem of the relationships between Enlightenment and non-enlightenment. It examined two kinds of such relationships: identity and nonidentity.
Because all phenomena in their foundations have no substance different from their Suchness, just as all kinds of pottery are of the same nature being made of clay. Therefore even magic-like appearances (maya; huan) in their root substantiality have the basic intrinsic nature of the Absolute Mind and its Suchness. Here the author of the Awakening refers to the canonical text of the unidentified sutra:
‘…all sentient beings intrinsically abide in eternity and are entered nirvana. The state of enlightenment is not something that is to be acquired by practice or to be created. In the end, it is unobtainable [for it is given from the beginning].’
The aspect of nonidentity has an accidental nature, just as different kinds of pottery have different images and forms. Therefore, empirically, illusions of samsara have their existence. The differences between the reality of Suchness and the illusory phenomena of samsara exist in accordance with the defiled consciousness of the sentient beings and their effective ignorance of the nature of Reality.
And, rather curiously, it can be said that the ignorant consciousness of the sentient beings has its relative non-substantial existence due to the non-enlightened aspect of One Mind which in its turn exists only for the deluded consciousness of the sentient beings having no existence of its own (svabhava; zi xing).
Let us see now, what is the way of the explication of samsara produced by the operation of the non-enlightened aspect of One Mind.
The Awakening describes three stages of the origination of samsara:
On the third stage the mind became conditioned by the character of the objects. In this state it produces the following six aspects:
Describing the beginning of the process of the emergence of samsara, the Awakening uses the word vasana (xun xi) which is the Yogacara technical term. Here it means the influence or actions which have abilities to permeate something. In the case of the origin of samsara it can be said that the nonenlightenment, having its ground in the original Enlightenment of Suchness, produces ignorance which is the primary cause of the defiled state that permeates into the substance of Suchness itself. And this permeation (vasana) is the cause of the appearance of the deluded consciousness. While the principle of Suchness has not been yet realized in the ‘Enlightenment which has its beginning’, the deluded consciousness continues to predicate the erroneously conceived objects of senses and mind. These objects, in their turn, permeate the deluded consciousness ‘and cause the deluded mind to attach itself to its thoughts, to create various… karma, and to undergo all kinds of physical and mental suffering’. An end can be put to this process only by Enlightenment which, being empirically a result of psycho-practical mind cultivation, is substantially the same as the original Enlightenment, just as the nature of Reality is such.
How does the Awakening describe the liberated enlightened mind? Here the text uses the rather popular metaphors in Buddhist works of waves and water. Here follows two rather important quotations from the text:
Therefore, it can be said that Enlightenment stops the winds of ignorance from blowing under the surface of calm by its intrinsic nature of water. Water (which is an image of the self-nature of the Absolute Mind) does not change, its nature remains just the same, and only the accidental and substantially unreal waves (cyclic existence of samsara), produced by the wind of ignorance (avidya, bu jue) rooted in the depths of One Mind itself, cease to appear. It means literally that for the Enlightened mind all spheres of objects cease to be. And for this perfectly Enlightened Mind the ‘black dot’ of the aspect of non-enlightenment does no longer exists. This is a ‘correction’, or ‘catharsis’ of Suchness. It becomes what it really is from the very beginning: non-dual, self luminescent, absolute One Mind possessing innumerable good and excellent qualities of the Buddha as Dharmakaya. This is presented in the Awakening as follows:
In fact, there are no corporeal objects, because all objects are original from the mind. And as long as there are no corporeal objects at all, ‘empty place’ can not be maintained. All objects are of the mind alone; but when illusions arise, [objects which are regarded as real] appear. When the mind is free from its deluded activities, then all objects [imagined as real] vanish of themselves. [What is real,] the one and true Mind, pervades everywhere. This is the final meaning of the Tathagata’s great and comprehensive wisdom.
Examining in brief all the most important teachings of the Awakening related to the roots of samsaric evil and the liberation from them, we can now to analyze and compare the typologies of the Mahayanistic and Kabbalistic approaches to these subjects.
In the attitude of the Awakening towards the problem of evil we can find a number of features which are comparable to the attitudes expressed in Lurianic Kabbalah.
Nevertheless, there are also very important and theologically substantial differences between the understanding of the nature of evil and the ways of its elimination in these two kinds of the mystical theosophies. And they are also important for an understanding of the essential specific features of the soteriological attitudes of Lurianic Kabbalah, as rooted in the Biblical world-view, and those of Mahayanistic Buddhism which is closely related to the traditional Indian ways of thinking.
First of all, it must be noted that the end of the world-process in the Lurianic Kabbalah is tiqqun � that is, the restoration of the purified creation to its perfect and undefiled state, or even its inclusion into the sphere of the Divine pleroma. In the Awakening, Enlightenment is seen as the state of elimination of all subject-object relations and the extinction of the manifold world as such: mind returns to its own intrinsic nature, and the waves (i.e., the world) caused by the wind of ignorance cease to appear in the phenomena, revealing the true calm self-nature of the Mind as the plain surface of the Ocean of the Absolute. Therefore the Lurianic attitude toward the creation (manifold world produced from the depths of the Absolute) is ontologically optimistic, while that of the Awakening is pessimistic.
Secondly, the very evaluation of the creative process is rather different in both systems: the moving power of the unfolding of One Mind/Suchness in the world of phenomena is delusion, and only by complete Enlightenment are the effects of this delusion (the influence of the unenlightened aspect of Suchness) and the universe (three worlds of samsara), eliminated. On the other hand, the corresponding attitude in Lurianic Kabbalah is more complicated. There, the shadow of potential evil participates in the process of creation from the very beginning, but that creation is also a positively evaluated act of the Divine unfolding. Moshe Hayyim Luzzato had even suggested that the Absolute En Sof was obliged to give up His omniscience and omnipotence, in order to be able to create the space-and-time dependent world. The Absolute is by its nature static, as Aristotle had asserted; therefore, in order to achieve a dynamic state of creation, the Absolute had to give up being absolute.
Summarizing the above-mentioned differences, it would be rather convenient to use metaphorically Nathan of Gaza‘s images of the thought-some and thought-less Lights. (Thought-some lights express the Divine Will to create, while thought-less lights express its Will to remain in the primordial quietness of its hidden mystery, understanding the creation only as an explication of the powers of evil and even as a revolt against the Absolute itself.) Comparing this problem of creation in Lurianic Kabbalah and the Awakening, the former expresses mostly a position of the thought-some Lights, while the latter expresses that of the thought-less Lights.
And last but not least, these two systems use very different languages to express their ideas: that of the Lurianic and Sabbatean thinkers is the gnostic mytho-poetic language of a highly suggestive character, while the language of the Awakening is a philosophical and speculative one, relating this text to the traditional treatises of the learned Buddhist scholasticism.
Moreover, it is important to note that the problem of examining Kabbalistic mysticism within the broad frames of intercultural researches is rather substantial, and this paper is only one of the first steps on this way. But an ancient Chinese sage said: ‘The way in ten thousand miles begins with one step’. And if this step has been done here, then the author can consider his task to be fulfilled.
NOTES
On evil in Christian thought, see J.H. Hick Evil and the God of Love, New York 1977; G.R. Evans, Augustine on Evil, Cambridge Mass. 1983; S. Runciman, The Medieval Manichee: A Study of the Christian Dualist Heresy, Cambridge, Mass. 1982.
For a review of Leibniz’s theodical system see S.C. Brown, Leibniz. Minnesota 1985; L. E. Loemker, Struggle for Synthesis: The Seventeenth-Century Background of Leibniz’s Synthesis of Order and Freedom, Cambridge, Mass. 1972.
Explanations of this sort were suggested, for instance, by A. Schopenhauer who ardently denied not only Christian approaches to the problem of freedom of will but even this principle as such (at least on the phenomenal being of existence). For a critical review see B. Magee, The Philosophy of Schopenhauer, Oxford 1983.
Notable examples are J. Boehme, and Schelling who followed Boehme on this point. For review see R. F. Brown The Later Philosophy of Schelling: The Influence of Boehme on the works of 1809-1815, Bucknell University Press 1976 (Henceforth, Brown, The Later Philosophy of Schelling); M. Heidegger, Schelling’s Treatise on the Essence of Human Freedom, Translated by Joan Stambaugh, Ohio University Press 1985.
For a review of Berdyaev’s position on evil see N. Berdyaev, The Destiny of Man, translated by N. Duddington. New York and London 1979; L. E. Allen Freedom in God: A Guide to the Thought of Nicholas Berdyaev, New York 1980; A. F. Zamaleyev Lektsii po istorii russkoi filosofii (Lectures on the History of Russian Philosophy), St. Petersburg 1995, pp. 232-233.
For a review of Schelling’s position on the dark foundation of Godhead see F. Schelling, Of Human Freedom, trans. J. Gutmann, New York 1985; R.F. Brown, The Later Philosophy of Schelling.
For a review of Kabbalistic influence on Boehme and Schelling see Secret F. Les Kabbalistes chr�tiens de la Renaissance, Paris 1964; W. A. Schultze, ‘Schelling und die Kabbala‘, Judaica 13 (1957).
However, see J. Dan, ‘Kabbalistic and Gnostic Dualism‘, Binah 3 (1994), pp. 19-33 [First printed in Hebrew in Da'at 19 (1987), pp. 5-16].
G. Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi. The Mystical Messiah 1626-1676, Princeton 1973, p. 28. (Henceforth, Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi.)
For the sources of the doctrine of Zimzum in Lurianic Kabbalah see M. Idel, ‘On the Concept of Zimzum in Kabbalah and its Research‘, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, X (1992), pp. 59-112 [Hebrew]; B. Huss, ‘Genizat Ha-Or in Simeon Lavi’s Ketem Paz and the Lurianic Doctrine of Zimzum‘, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 10 (1992), pp. 341-362 [Hebrew].
Scholem has asserted that philosophical approach to Zimzum was suggested first of all by Italian Kabbalist Israel Sarug. See G. Scholem, ‘Israel Sarug – a disciple of R. Yizhak Luria?‘ Zion 5 (1940), pp. 214-243 [Hebrew]. Altmann, however, disagreed and asserted that Sarug’s interpretation was actually mythical. See A. Altmann, ‘Notes on the Development of Rabbi Menahem Azariah Fano’s Kabbalistic Doctrine‘, Studies in Jewish Mysticism Philosophy and Ethical Literature Presented to Isaiah Tishby on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, Jerusalem 1986, pp. 241-268 [Hebrew]. For a philosophical analysis of Zimzum in the thought of Herrera, Sarug’s disciple, see N. Yosha, Myth and Metaphor: Abraham Cohen Herrera’s Philosophical Interpretation of Lurianic Kabbalah, Jerusalem 1994, pp. 188-210 [Hebrew].
The most notable example is Moshe Hayyim Luzzato
Ch. Wirszubski, Between the Lines: Kabbalah, Christian Kabbalah and Sabbatianism, ed. M. Idel, Jerusalem 1990, pp. 156-159 [Hebrew]. A. Elqayam, The Mystery of Faith in the Writings of Nathan of Gaza, Ph.D. Dissertation, The Hebrew University, 1993, [Hebrew]; [henceforth The Mystery].
I. Tishby, The Doctrine of Evil and the ‘Kelippah’ in Lurianic Kabbalah. Jerusalem 1984, [Hebrew]. Tishby’s interpretation was also taken up by Scholem in Sabbatai Sevi, p. 30.
On the Yogacara philosophy see: L. de la Valle Poussin, Vijnaptimatra siddhi sastra (Le siddhi de Hsuan-tsang). T. 1-2, Paris 1928-1929; Th. E. Wood, Mind Only: A Philosophical Doctrinal Analysis of the Vijnanavada, Honolulu 1991; Th. A. Kochumuttom, Buddhist Doctrine of Experience, New Delhi 1982; Th. Stcherbatsky, Buddhist Logic, Leningrad 1930-1932.
The scriptural sources of the Tathagatagarbha doctrine are such canonical texts of Mahayana as Tathagatagarbha sutra, Maha parinirvana sutra and Srimaladevi simhanada sutra.
On the theory of Tathagatagarbha see: E.E. Obermiller, The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation. A translation of Uttaratantra of Bodhisattva Maitreya with the Commentary of Asanga, Acta Orientalia 9, 1931; Jikido Takasaki, Study on the Ratnagotravibhaga (Uttaratantra), Serie Orientale Roma 33,1966; D. S. Ruegg, La Theorie du Tathagatagarbha et du Gotra. Etudes sur la Soteriologie et la Gnoseologie du Bouddhisme, Paris 1969.
Peter N. Gregory, ‘The Problem of Theodicy in the Awakening of Faith‘, Religious Studies 22 pp.
63-78.
All the citations from the Awakening will be given by the English translation of Yoshito S. Hakeda: The Awakening of Faith. Attributed to Asvaghosha. Translated with commentaries by Yoshito S. Hakeda, New York 1967 [henceforth: Hakeda]. The text was also translated from original Chinese into Russian by E. Torchinov: Traktat o probuzhdenii vey v Mahayanu (Treatise on the Awakening of Faith in Mahayana), St. Petersburg 1997. The original text of the Awakening is included in the Chinese Tripitaka (Buddhist Canon). See: Taisho shinshu daizokye (Tripitaka Taisho – TT), vol. 32 (No. 1666), pp. 575-583.
Hakeda, p. 65. The tenet that ‘one and the same mind which is a source of samsara as well as nirvana is rather common to such radical trends of Mahayana Buddhism as the tradition of the mahasiddhas (Great Perfect Ones) of the Tantric Vajrayana, Tibetan rdzog-chen and Sino-Japanese Chan/Zen. It is interesting that the idea that mind and mental attitudes are responsible for samsaric bondage or nirvanic liberation obtained its expression in the form of a kind of ethical antnomianism (compare with the mystical antinomianism of the Sabbatians). Thus, Candamaharosana tantra says: ‘The same fearful deeds which lead living beings to terrible hells, without doubt lead to liberation when done in accordance with the method of release. It is the established opinion that the mind is forerunner of everything, evil as well as good; the distinctions regarding state of existence, place and so on are forms of imagination of the mind’. See Lal Mani Joshi, ‘Religious Change in Late Indian Buddhist History, Part III‘, Buddhist Studies Review 9 (1992), p. 159.
Hakeda, p. 37. The words ‘without any second’ have been added in brackets by the translator (Yoshito S. Hakeda) but the notion of advaya (bu er), non-duality is extremely important for the Mahayana thought.
Ibid., p. 38.
Hakeda, p. 43.
Chan Preface (or Preface to the Collection of Explanations of the Origins of the Chan Truths) is included in the Chinese Tripitaka (TT, 48, pp. 409-414) with the title: Chan yuan zhu quan ji du xu. English translation: Broughton J. Kuei-feng Tsung-mi: the convergence of Ch’an and the Teachings’. Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1975. Russian translation by K. Yu. Solonin: Zong-mi. Chanskie istiny (Chan Truths). St. Petersburg 1998, pp. 36-110 (diagrams and their explanations on pp. 102-103).
Hakeda, p. 46.
Hakeda, pp. 44-45.
Awakening, p. 57.
Awakening, p. 41.
Awakening, pp. 55-56. It is rather interesting that Nathan of Gaza also uses the image of water and waves regarding the relations between Absolute and the creation (personal communication with Prof. A. Elqayam).
Awakening, p. 75.
Professor A. Elqayam’s personal communication.
Elqayam A. The Mystery.
On the comparison of the Kabbalistic and Oriental mystical teachings see also: Torchinov E. Kabbala I Vostok (Kabbalah and the East), Vestnik evreiskogo universiteta v Moskve (Works of the Hebrew University in Moscow), 3 (16), Moscow-Jerusalem 1997/5758, pp. 96-128. Here I am very glad to express my profound and sincere gratitude to Prof. Avraham Elqayam for his invaluable assistance and consultations without which the aim of this article could not be attained.
November 9, 2007
The greater your spiritual yearning, the more you will receive in prayer and meditation. Spiritual yearning in Judaism is not a sign of lack. In the physical world, we consider a lack as not having something we want. In the spiritual world, yearning is actually a measure of the degree of spiritual attainment.. The greater the attainment, the greater the spiritual yearning will be. Spiritual yearning is itself a spiritual gift; as it ‘fills the heart with sweetness. The greatest teachers embodied the most intense yearning. Think of the psalms, and all the yearning contained within them.
The famous Kotzker Rebbe of the nineteenth century said, “God lives where we allow Him to enter.” We must actively choose to create the opening for God. In meditation, we create the space for God to enter us. We get out of the way. We let go of the concerns of the day, the demands of the ego to receive, and actively choose to welcome and experience God in our most inner being. The Midrash, the Jewish book of oral teachings, quotes God: “Open to Me the size of the eye of a needle and I will open to you the size of a grand ballroom.“ Though God is not visible to our physical eyes, God is very real and present. God is not a figment of the imagination. Kabbalah refers to this process as “the arousal from below that awakens the arousal from above.” Though God does not have needs and desires in the way that we do, Jewish sages and prophets have said repeatedly that whatever steps, whatever opening we make toward God, God responds to us. God “wants“ us to open to Him, and assists us in opening. It is important to know and constantly recall that one of the most basic and important teachings of Judaism is that God created this world to bestow the highest goodness. Our spiritual quest for God is not one-sided. As Rabbi Isaac, a great kabbalist of the twelfth century, said, “More than the calf wants to suck, the cow wants to give suck.” God wants to give and to bestow goodness. When we open to receive from God, we allow God to give His goodness. This is God’s desire. We actually contribute to God’s realizing His intention. In this way, we give to God by allowing God to be more present and expressed in our lives.
The word kabbalah literally comes from the Hebrew root word that means “to receive.“ You will receive from meditation what you open up to within yourself. No one can do it for you. You can read about meditation, but unless you experience it directly for yourself, you will never know it. I can describe my experience of eating an orange, but my description will be inadequate. You will know what it is only when you eat an orange yourself.
–extract from “Everyday Kabbalah” by Melinda Ribner
………………………..
How can the drops of water
Know themselves to be a river?
October 6, 2007
Can we achieve Tao…….
“One yin and one yang constitute what is known as Tao.” (I Ching) In “The Lau Tzu” (Tao Te Ching) the two forms of yin and yang refer to heaven and earth. This directly correlates with the concept of the Taoist trilogy, the San Ti, which postulates man is the same as heaven and earth.
1.. In Taoism, the basic, eternal principle of the universe that transcends reality and is the source of being, non-being, and change.
2.. In Confucianism, the right manner of human activity and virtuous conduct seen as stemming from universal criteria and ideals governing right, wrong, and other categories of existence. (American Heritage)
“Wu Chi creates Tai Chi, Tai Chi is the one Chi. One Chi generates Yin and Yang, and Yin and Yang can change in infinite ways.” This is also stated allegorically in the “Lau Tzu,” (“Tao Te Ching”). ” Tao produced oneness. Oneness produced duality, Duality evolved into the ten thousand things. The ten thousand things support the yin, and embrace the yang. It is the blending of the breaths (of yin and yang) that their harmony depends.”
Now compare this idea with the description of the monad from the Chaldean Oracles of Zoroaster….
This sequence of from the “Oracles,” reflects a parallel to the monad and Tai Chi that is unmistakable..
25. The Monad first existed, and the Paternal Monad still subsists.
26. When the Monad is extended, the Dyad is generated.
27. And beside Him is seated the Dyad which glitters with intellectual sections,
to govern all things and to order everything not ordered.
28. The Mind of the Father said that all things should be cut into Three, whose
Will assented, and immediately all things were so divided.
29. The Mind of the Eternal Father said into Three, governing all things by Mind.
30. The Father mingled every Spirit from this Triad.
31. All things are supplied from the bosom of this Triad.
32. All things are governed and subsist in this Triad
33. For thou must know that all things bow before the Three Supernals.
34. From thence floweth forth the Form of the Triad, being preexistent; not the
first Essence, but that whereby all things are measured.
35. And there appeared in it Virtue and Wisdom, and multiscient Truth.
36. For in each World shineth the Triad, over which the Monad ruleth.”
As you can figure the two concepts are the same, although they may be stated somewhat differently. We do not have to achieve Tao, we are already part of it. All we need to do is realize its potential.
Tom Saunders
Come and behold: There is a dress that is visible to everyone. The simple people, when they see a person dressed beautifully, WHO APPEARS TO THEM DISTINGUISHED BY HIS CLOTHING, do not observe any further. THEY MAKE THEIR JUDGMENTS ABOUT HIM ACCORDING TO HIS DISTINGUISHED APPAREL and they consider the dress as the body OF MAN, and the body OF THE PERSON LIKE his soul.
Similar to this is the Torah. It has a body, which is composed of the commandments of the Torah that are called the ‘body of the Torah’. This body is clothed with garments, which are stories of this world. The ignorant of the world look only at that dress, which is the story in the Torah, and are not aware of anything more. They do not look at what lies beneath that dress. Those who know more do not look at the dress, but rather at the body beneath that dress. The wise, the sages, the servants of the Loftiest King, those that stood at Mount Sinai, look only at the soul OF THE TORAH, which is the essence of everything, the real Torah. In the destiny to come, they are destined to look at the soul, the soul of the Torah.
–the Zohar
A slave seeks only to be free and does not seek the master’s estate.
For a child it is not enough to be a child, but a child claims the
father’s inheritance.
Heirs to the dead are dead, and what they inherit is dead. Heirs to
the living are alive, and they inherit both the living and the dead.
The dead inherit nothing, for how could a dead person inherit? If a
dead person inherits the living, the living will not die and the dead
will come to life.
–Philip (Meyer translation)
September 27, 2007
Sometimes I am sitting here at home
all alone.
But I am not alone.
I have a drum, water, gourd rattle.
I sing the songs
And my worries are gone.
I feel good again
And refreshed.
–Bernard Ice
Settle in solitude,
and you will come upon Him
In yourself.
–st teresa
August 8, 2007
“I saw some piglets suckling their dead mother.
After a short while they shuddered and went away.
They had sensed that she could no longer see
them and that she wasn’t like them anymore.
What they loved in their mother wasn’t her body,
but whatever it was that made her body live.”
–Confucius
…………………
See and hear and become instructed,
that you may ascend to the Light Land victorious.
The good sit in stillness and are found searching;
and all that have understanding let themselves be instructed
The good speak, take counsel together and say:
Who will come, Who will tell me,
who will set it forth for me, who will give me instructions?
Who will come and who will tell me whether there was originally
one king or two.
The good speak and let themselves be instructed.
Two kings were there, two natures were fashioned,
a king of this world and a king from outside of the worlds.
The king of this aeon girt on a sword and put on a crown
of darkness. A crown of darkness he put on his head,
and took a sword in his right hand.
A sword he took in his right hand; he stands there and
slaughters his sons, and his sons slaughter each other.
The king from outside of the worlds set a crown of Light
on his head. A crown of light he sat on his head, and took
Truth in his right hand. Truth in his right hand he took,
and stands there and instructs his sons.
He stands there and instructs his sons,
and his sons instruct one another.
–Secret Teachings of Angelic kings (ancient Aramaic text)
………………….
Glass decanters and earthenware jugs
are both made by means of fire.
But if glass decanters break,
they are done over, for they came into
being through a breath. If earthenware
jugs break, however, they are destroyed,
for they came into being without breath.
-Gospel of Philip
July 19, 2007
The attainment of wholeness requires one to stake one’s whole being. Nothing
less will do; there can be no easier conditions, no substitutes, no
compromise.
–CG JUNG
Do you have the patience to wait
till your mud settles and the water is clear?
Can you remain unmoving
Till the right action rises by itself?
–Lao Tzu
One merges into another, groups melt into ecological groups until the time
when what we know as life meets and enters what we think of as non-life:
barnacle and rock, rock and earth, earth and tree, tree and rain and air….
And it is a strange thing that most of the feeling we call religious, most
of the mystical outcrying which is one of the most prized and used and
desired reactions of our species, is really the understanding and the
attempt to say that man is related to the whole thing, related inextricably
to all reality, known and unknowable. This is a simple thing to say, but the
profound feeling of it made a Jesus, a St. Augustine, a St. Francis, a Roger
Bacon, a Charles Darwin, and an Einstein. Each of them in his own tempo and
with his own voice discovered and reaffirmed with astonishment the knowledge
that all things are one thing and that one thing is all things-plankton, a
shimmering phosphorescence on the sea and spinning planets and the expanding
universe, all bound together by the elastic string of time.
–JOHN STEINBECK AND EDWARD F. RICKETTS,
**
Don’t go outside your house to see the flowers.
My friend, don’t bother with that excursion.
Inside your body there are flowers.
One flower has a thousand petals.
That will do for a place to sit.
Sitting there you will have a glimpse of beauty
inside the body and out of it,
before gardens and after gardens.
–Kabir
The Master sees things as they are,
without trying to control them.
She lets them go their own way,
And resides at the center of the circle.
–Lao Tzu
“When I was a Buddhist, it drove my parents and friends crazy, but when I am a buddha, nobody is upset at all.”
July 17, 2007
“In the beginning, Ein Sof emanated ten sefirot , which are of its essence, united with it. It and they are entirely one. There is no change or division in the emanator that would justify saying it is divided into parts in these various sefirot. Division and change do not apply to it, only to the external sefirah.
To help you conceive this, imagine water flowing through vessels of different colours: white, red, green and so forth. As the water spreads through those vessels, it appears to change into the colours of the vessels, although the water is devoid of all colour. The change in colour does not affect the water itself, just our perception of the water. So it is with the sefirot. They are vessels, known, for example, as Chesed, Gevurah and Tiferet, each coloured according to its function, white, red, and green, respectively, while the light of the emanator – their essence – is in the water, having no colour at all. This essence does not change, it only appears to change as it flows through the vessels.
Better yet, imagine a ray of sunlight shining through a stained-glass window of ten different colours. The sunlight possesses no colour at all but appears to change hue as it passes through the different colours of glass. Coloured light radiates through the window. The light has no essentially changed, though so it seems to the viewer. Just so with the sefirot.”
- Moses Cordovero (Pardes Rimmonim [Garden of Pomegranates])
It is a basic truth, that there is no beginning or end.
In Gnosticism we find this in the Oroborous symbol. The snake eating its own tail. often this is seen as the end being eaten by the beginning (mouth and tail)..but if we dive deeper into an inner insight we could argue that it explores the idea of transcendence. That there is no end OR beginning, far more than the end is in the beginning.
In kabbalah we can see that the first emanation is closer to the last than it is to the second. The end is in the beginning, the end IS the beginning…thus there is no end or beginning.
One could argue that a hidden 11th emanation or 12th is the entire tree itself, in one big “sphere”…. a sphere has no end or beginning…
The passage states the nature does not change only our perception of it. Thus a simple example would be states of matter. H2O is H2O, whether it is ice, steam or water….the substance is still H2O. As regards the divine, thus it does not change, our perception of the divine changes…or our perception of “AIN” changes
Thus to tie this in with the nullification of ourselves we see that we are really the divine, the water in the example, we are that water. We conceive of ourselves as being red, green, blue or purple etc. However really we are water….
“It and they are entirely one.”.
